In Reversal, Democrats Shelve Iran Resolution

US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Banking Chairman Barney Frank. After realizing that H.Con.Res.362 could lead to war with Iran, Frank - a cosponsor - has vowed to oppose the bill until its aggressive language is changed. (Photo: AFP / Getty)

Falling from shoo-in status to widely rejected legislation within the space
of four months, a resolution that would have opened the door for a naval blockade
on Iran was officially shelved at the end of September, after several of its
cosponsors withdrew their support. House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman
Howard Berman has promised not to bring the bill, House Concurrent Resolution
362, before the committee until concerns about the text are addressed.

Given the scare-tactic-laden climate of the past eight years, 362's journey
is remarkable: it represents a forceful effort by members of Congress - prodded
by grassroots groups - to turn back the tides of impending war.

"The game-changer occurred when lawmakers realized that the resolution
would lead to a naval blockade and war," Trita Parsi, president of the
National Iranian American Council, told Truthout. "The mood in Congress
is similar to what it is in the country as a whole - the appetite for another
war in the Middle East simply isn't there."

The Iran resolution, originally proposed in late May, would have imposed "stringent
inspection requirements" on trade with Iran, making a military blockade
and the legal use of force distinct possibilities. It quickly gained bipartisan
support, even among some of Congress's most progressive members, such as impeachment
advocate Robert Wexler, Oversight Committee chairman and vocal Bush critic Henry
Waxman, and Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky, rated the most liberal Democrat in
Congress by the nonpartisan vote-tracking project GovTrack.

Intense lobbying efforts by the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee
propelled the bill forward, and in late June, sources close to Congressional
leadership expected it to be ushered onto the House floor under suspension of
the rules. A place on the suspension schedule - usually reserved for uncontroversial
legislation - would have meant very limited debate and a quick vote for 362.

AIPAC framed the bill as a necessary escalation of tactics toward Iran. In
a statement on the legislation, AIPAC announced, "Iran poses a growing
threat to the United States and our allies as it continues rapidly advancing
toward a nuclear weapons capability. Sanctions are having an impact on Iran,
but more needs to be done now to persuade Tehran to change course."

Pressure from AIPAC and similar groups weighed heavily in some members' decisions
to support the legislation, according to Jim Fine, legislative secretary for
foreign policy for the Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL). He
added that the force of the lobbyists sometimes took the place of careful consideration.

"In some cases, members clearly signed on without reading or understanding
the implications of what they were signing on to, in part because the resolution's
supporters presented it as nothing more than an incremental increase in sanctions
against Iran and stressed that nothing in the resolution authorized the use
of force against Iran - a red herring, since a nonbinding resolution never authorizes
anything," Fine told Truthout. "But even when they understood the
resolution's implications and didn't agree with them, some offices reported
they were receiving so many emails and phone calls urging them to cosponsor,
they didn't feel they could refuse."

Yet, just as the bill was poised to sail through the House, another lobbying
effort staged a counterattack. A widespread coalition of peace groups, religious
organizations, Iranian Americans and Jewish Americans coordinated phone-ins,
email campaigns and visits to Congressional offices. They stressed that, though
the language of the bill may imply that it simply strengthens sanctions, it
actually could only be implemented by military means.

Prominent military experts and military personnel concurred with the grassroots
movement, and made their voices heard.

"The blockade is not a step short of war; it is war. It virtually guarantees
military confrontation causing unnecessary casualties on both sides," stated
University of Minnesota Professor Cyrus Bina and Col. Sam Gardiner (ret.) in
an early July op-ed, in the Washington Times.

The sponsors of 362, Congressmen Gary Ackerman and Mike Pence, responded to
the accusations of activists and experts in a letter to their colleagues, stating,
"These assertions are absolutely false and, frankly, utter nonsense."

But military experts continued to challenge 362. Vice Admiral Jack Shanahan,
US Navy (ret.); Dr. Lawrence Korb, former assistant secretary of defense, and
Lt. Gen. Robert G. Gard Jr. (ret.) responded to the sponsors' retorts in a letter
to House members. "Despite the protestations of its sponsors, we believe
that implementation of inspections of this nature could not be accomplished
without a blockade or the use of force... Without a Security Council Resolution,
implementation of these measures could be construed as an act of war,"
they wrote.

Meanwhile, grassroots efforts crescendoed, with thousands of messages sent
to Congress about the resolution. National advocacy organizations' alerts were
picked up by local groups, prompting an unusually large number of constituents
to request personal meetings with their representatives, according to Fine.

Congress's response was unprecedented: five co-sponsors officially withdrew
their names from the bill, while several more, including Wexler, voiced firm
opposition to the bill's current language and vowed to push for changes.

"None of us at FCNL can remember another time when five members withdrew
from a resolution they had agreed to cosponsor," Fine said.

It is also unusual for cosponsors of a bill to belatedly object to a substantial
component of it - especially in an election year. Co-sponsor Congressman Barney
Frank, who now opposes the resolution as it stands, even admitted to constituents
that he'd made a mistake.

"I agree that this should not be our policy, and I regret the fact that
I did not read this resolution more carefully," Frank wrote in a letter
to an activist with Peace Action. "I'm going to consult with the authors
to see if a change can be made that would omit this language, and if they are
unwilling to do that, I will make very clear my disagreement with this in the
most appropriate form. I apologize again for not having read this more carefully."

Ackerman has vowed to resume pushing for 362's passage later in the year, saying
that the resolution continues to gain support among others in Congress. However,
the past few months' backlash will make a renewed effort more difficult, according
to Parsi - especially since grassroots groups are not giving up.

"There will likely be other attempts, but I don't think it is likely that
language calling for a blockade - i.e. war - will pass easily," Parsi said.
"We are prepared to work with all parties to make sure that a new and more
constructive policy on Iran is put together that effectively meets the Iranian
challenge."

In a broad sense, the rejection of H.Con.Res.362 paves the way for a new outlook
on Iran, according to Fine. He points to the National Intelligence Estimate
report released in December 2007, which encouraged diplomacy with Iran, as a
guidepost for governmental action.

"Engaging with Iran to try to resolve dangerous conflict is common sense,"
Fine said. "Five former US secretaries of state have just repeated their
call for direct talks with Iran, including Henry Kissinger, who says talks should
begin at the secretary of state level. Congress is beginning to hear the message."